Editing Office - Geneva 

Finding the Right Words to Silence the Guns

Words can make or break peace. Although the success of a mediation process depends on political will, mediators and conflict parties often seek inspiration from other peace agreements for possible concepts and formulations. To assist mediators, conflict parties and other stakeholders in this creative process, the Legal Tools for Peacemaking Project at theLauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, in collaboration with the Mediation Support Unit in the UN Department of Political Affairs (DPA), has created the new database, Language of Peace. Language of Peace is an innovative tool that provides instant access to a rich collection of more than a thousand peace agreements, which can be searched for key issues, which are then instantly cross-referenced and compiled. The provisions of agreements are broken down into 26 categories (which cover some 250 sub-topics), ranging from ceasefire arrangements and power sharing to human rights and guarantee mechanisms. Users can browse, search, compile and export into a word document or PDF the provisions of peace agreements relevant to their enquiry. Language of Peace builds on and complements the UN Peacemaker database, which hosts the full text the agreements. 

At the launch of the database on 6 December, hosted by Switzerland, DPA Under-Secretary General Jeffrey Feltman and former UN envoy and mediator Ambassador Álvaro de Soto recounted experiences from Colombia and the Central African Republic, to Cyprus, Syria and the broader Middle East to debate some of the challenges faced, and strategies used, in crafting peace agreements. Constructive ambiguity, for example, has its supporters and detractors in the mediation community: sometimes it may useful to get over a hurdle, create some political momentum or generate space to tackle other issues. However, as illustrated by the differing interpretations of the 2012 Syria Geneva Communiqué’s reference to a “transitional governing body with full executive powers”, buy-in based on differing interpretations does not translate into political commitment. Ultimately, there remains a risk that ambiguity will undermine the precision needed for effective implementation.